They are known by several names: the
Islamic State (IS), the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Any
way they are called, people instantly know of them as the current big target of
President Barack Obama. They are also thought to be one of the biggest and
arguably scariest threats the U.S. has had to go up against. They have
recruited children and teenagers, whether they were volunteered or kidnapped,
and they have released graphic videos that show the beheading and killing of hostages,
including journalists.
Very recently, Congress has given
President Obama an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, that
allows him power for a full-on war against ISIS. With this AUMF, according to
CNN, President Obama would limit “boots on the ground” soldiers to missions
that are either for rescue purposes or to take out an ISIS leader. This AUMF
also has a term of three years, after which Congress would have to give the
president an extension to continue it. This looks to be a slow turn-around from
President Obama’s point of view just a few months earlier.
Back on September 10, 2014,
President Obama made an approximately 15-minute speech to the nation, laying
out his plan on how to deal with ISIS at that point. His plan included sending
over more of those who serve in the Armed Forces to train local forces and more
airstrikes, but no troops would be attacking on soil (“boots on the ground”).
His speech triggered many mixed responses from key political figures, including
those in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Washington Post published some of these comments. While
President Obama is a Democrat and the opposing Republican Party — as a result
of midterm elections back in November — mostly controls Congress, there were Republicans
who did support him. For example, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) was quoted as
saying, “At the end of the day, we should give the president the authority and
money he needs.” On the other hand, there were members of the president’s own
party who were concerned, such as Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.). Udall said that he
“would not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to
begin another war in Iraq.” President Obama’s promise not to put “boots on the
ground” also gave him some disapproval, as there were countless people who have
criticized his foreign policy.
This
is not the first time in recent U.S. political history that an AUMF was granted
to a president, as President George W. Bush was also granted one following the
devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. According to CNN, the difference
between the two is that Bush’s AUMF was longer, and still remains in tact to
this day, and had less clear language on who the enemy is, just naming
terrorism. This would have allowed President Bush to technically set his battle
sights on anywhere he pleased. CNN also pointed out that even President Obama
has used the 2001 AUMF as authorization to go into wherever he also pleased. This
list of countries, put together by Congressional Research Service, targeted
with use of the 2001 AUMF include Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya, Somalia and Yemen,
among others.
Under this new AUMF, it is made clear that the enemy is ISIS, with the name being mentioned 17 times in the AUMF’s text. So,
it is clear who the enemy is and money is not wasted by getting into unnecessary
conflict and/or combat with other nations.
Furthermore,
while response to the September 2014 speech from Congress was split (and there
is still a split on the AUMF itself by those in the House and Senate), CNN
reports that just about everyone in Washington feels it’s finally time to deal
with ISIS. There are those out there, however, who feel the exact opposite —
that it’s time for the president to pull out and end conflict with ISIS. One
such example is the Syracuse Peace Council. They called on Congress to cancel
the AUMF and end this, along with all other war on the Middle East, because
they are not doing anything good for the country. They say that since the U.S.
entered the Middle East in 2003, $4.5 billion has been spent, over 350,000
lives have been lost and “Islamophobic attacks in
the U.S continue to persist.” ISIS, however, is more than just an American enemy — it’s an
enemy to many places around the globe. According to an article in Newsweek that states 10 reasons ISIS is doomed,
any ally to the U.S. sees ISIS as an enemy. The governments of Iraq, Iran and
Syria (all places that ISIS has gotten into) see ISIS as an enemy. Even the terrorist
group Al-Qaeda, an enemy to the United States for quite the number of years
now, sees ISIS as an enemy. So ISIS is a problem to the entire world, not just
to the United States.
But then there’s
the inevitable question: What if the AUMF plan right now doesn’t work? Then
maybe it will be time that “boots on the ground” are needed. Even if it means
spending more money and sending more of our fighting men and women over, ISIS
is a common target with many different places around the globe. Also, President
Obama seems to be on a mission to improve how people see his foreign policy —
more than just being the one who was in office for the killing of Osama Bin
Laden. One example can be how he wants to calm and improve relations with Cuba.
